Talk:Exfoliation (cosmetology)

	Exfoliation (cosmetology) was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 4, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Medicine Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Claims are repeatedly made about exfoliation that are completely unsubstantiated. Assuming they do remove dead skin cells, the "benefits" of doing this are not proven. The portion of the article which I left aren't substantiated either, but I'm willing to believe "chemical exfoliants" and "mechanical exfoliants" operate as described. Mbac (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Six years later many unsubstantiated claims have returned. This time let's try sticking citation needed next to them. Mbac (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

..something less interesting to consider explaining. Does it come from the biological term, "exfoliation: when trees get rid of leaves", because you're ridding yourself of dead skin 'leaves' or sheets? Who coined the term? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nnnudibranch (talk • contribs) 02:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An attempt has been made. There doesn't seem to be a lot of information readily available concerning its history though. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked on dictionary.com, and it says "[Origin: 1670–80; NL exfoliātiōn- (s. of exfoliātiō). See exfoliate]", so I did go and see "exfoliate" and the first definition shown was

1. to throw off in scales, splinters, etc.
2. to remove the surface of (a bone, the skin, etc.) in scales or laminae.

I don't know the reliability of the website, I thought I'd throw it out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nnnudibranch (talk • contribs) 04:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, while what is here is of reasonable quality, this article is still much too short to cover the subject adequately. See the article on soap for the kind of thing you are looking to emulate. Another important point is that the quality of the sources is not very good (please read WP:V), About.com isn't a very reliable source, Article Land seems to be a blog site and is not an acceptable source, neither is www.newapeel.com. I'd recommend using Google Scholar or PubMed to find peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals. Nice work on what is here though, this is a good introduction to the subject. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I normally contribute to the tropical cyclone topics...so I am much less familiar of what is an acceptable reference for a medical-related article. I'll look at soap for length requirements and see if I can find better references. This type of topic is so general and "fad"-ish right now, that looking through the first 50-100 sites concerning the topic only yielded a few "doctors." Thegreatdr (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See http://scholar.google.com/ and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez the two search engines I mentioned, http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/ is usually open-access Tim Vickers (talk) 02:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "ancient" and "hundreds of years" aren't specific at all. Hackwrench (talk) 16:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This bot has detected that this page contains an image, Image:Skin.jpg, in a raster format. A replacement is available as a Scalable vector graphic (SVG) at File:Skin.svg. If the replacement image is suitable please edit the article to use the vector version. Scalable vector graphics should be used in preference to raster for images that can easily represented in a vector graphic format. If this bot is in error, you may leave a bug report at its talk page Thanks SVnaGBot1 (talk) 15:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think the jpg is much nicer, being more detailed, and labeled directly on the file. --Quintucket (talk) 07:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No need for separate stub article. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 15:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Justified proposal. D. is just another marketing term. Merge done. -- Kku (talk) 10:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 September 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Desivork (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Septemberlennan (talk) 03:34, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]